A man has been arrested in following Finsbury Park terrorist attack
More
Tommy Robinson, the former leader of the EDL, has provoked fury after describing the Finsbury Park mosque attack as a “revenge attack”.
The far-right activist, whose real name is Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon, tweeted that the place of worship “has a long history of creating terrorists and radical jihadists”.
He later responded to criticism, adding: “Facts are facts. I didn’t create this mosque’s history.”

Responding to Robinson on Twitter, one angry user said: “Does that make it OK then? Because that’s exactly what it sounds like you’re trying to say.”
Another added: “Sorry but what on earth does this have to do with the fact that innocent lives were lost? Are you trying to justify these acts?”
The attack took place outside the Muslim Welfare House, a few hundred metres away from Finsbury Park Mosque.
The mosque once became known as a “haven” for extremists, when radical Islamic cleric Abu Hamza was iman there between 1997 and 2002.

However, it was raided and shut down by police in 2003. Since then it has been run with a board of trustees supported by the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB).
In November 2014, it was given a Visible Quality Mark by national body Community Matters for stamping out extremism.
A spokesperson for HopeNotHate said: “The problem with ‘Tommy Robinson’ is that he gravitates around these incidents like a carrion crow, waiting to pump out his message of division and civil strife and blaming all Muslims for the actions of a few.
“Far from being the answer, Robinson is very much part of the problem. Pushing out messages attacking Muslims is hardly likely to take down the temperature: in fact, the very opposite. Those who push anger and hatred should look closely into their consciences when that is reflected back on the streets.”
Just a few weeks ago, Robinson said militias would be set up to “clean out this Islamic problem” in comments many said were inciting racial hatred.
He was widely condemned for launching into a rant about Islamic extremism moments after the Westminster bridge attack.
The former British National Party member has attempted to shake off his far-right image and ties to football hooliganism after leaving the EDL in 2013.

Robinson joined think tank Quilliam to discuss “alternative ways” of tackling extremism in the UK, but last year announced he was to become the UK co-ordinator for the anti-Islamist movement Pegida, which was founded in Dresden.
Josef Schuster, chairman of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, has described the group as a mix of “neo-Nazis, far-right parties and citizens who think they are finally allowed to show their racism and xenophobia openly.”

Finsbury Park: 'This is terror on the streets,' says Corbyn
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn says the Finsbury Park van rampage, which happened in his constituency, is "terror on the streets" and "terror of the people."._________________--
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.comhttp://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."

Last edited by Whitehall_Bin_Men on Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:23 pm; edited 2 times in total

After Guido suggested this morning that “Tommy Robinson and Anjem Choudary have a lot in common” people who should know better are defending Robinson as some kind of peace loving advocate of liberal democracy. Guido would suggest they look at these recent two videos for his “Rebel Media” channel. Here, Robinson talks about “cleaning out this Islamic problem“:

Lot of UKIP / far-right defending Robinson this morning. Their man will is lucky not to get his collar felt for this pic.twitter.com/0HugeqPMNc

— Alex Wickham (@WikiGuido) June 19, 2017
Phrased carefully for his viewers, saying the British public will form militias to do it. Who is it that has a history of organising the type of people obsessively concerned about these matters?

— Alex Wickham (@WikiGuido) June 19, 2017
There are a lot of similarities between Tommy and his opposite number Anjem Choudary:

Both agree on an expansionist, conquering interpretation of the Quran.
Both are denounced by the vast, vast majority of British Muslims.
Both have been in prison.
Both led extremist organisations.
Both love noisy confrontational street demonstrations where violence and arrests were common.
Both have been taken apart in BBC interviews by Andrew Neil.
Both, in their time, loved a beer and a fag.
Both were based in Luton.
Both struggled to keep their language short of incitement to violence laws, treading carefully to avoid official action against them.
Both are attention-seeking media manipulators who exploit legitimate grievances.
Neither of them commit violent acts, they do however feed into a narrative that inspires fellow travellers to do so…

Whatsapp_________________--
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.comhttp://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bruW6g2MhBM_________________--
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.comhttp://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."

Yes, they have to create an apparent right wing figure such as Robinson for several reasons:

1) To give the impression that left and right is a realistic paradigm - in so doing everyone begins to think that left must equal good...socialism therefore equals :thumbsup: ,
2) Aggro is good for divide and rule. Don't look here, look there whilst we maintain our power and laugh at those who believe it,
3) To encourage native white British people to think that Robinson and his ilk have a good point so that they can join them and waste their energy
as people did with the BNP,
4) To justify the anti-muslim stance, war on terror etc,
5) To justify socialism i.e racism is ugly...and that socialism is not racist,
6) To reinforce the distraction from people realising that both socialism and fascism are one and the same. Have you ever seen a black Russian politician or leader e.g? ,
7) To dissuade people from seeing that anarchy (bang in the middle of the continuum) is the best possible form of rule. E.g The U.S Constitution,
8) To spew anti-government / state propaganda...therefore let's replace it with our own system...socialism._________________Democracy is indispensable to socialism - VI Lenin

Jewish Voice says it's opposing the rise of 'far right extremism'. Why do people continue to believe and repeat that Islamaphobia and anti-semitism is on the right! It's not on the right, it's way to the left as is socialism.

It can now be reported that Tommy Robinson, the former leader of the English Defence League, convicted fraudster, sometime-football hooligan and self-reinvented free speech advocate, was on Friday 25 May 2018 imprisoned for 13 months for contempt of court after livestreaming a broadcast, including footage of participants in a criminal trial, outside Leeds Crown Court.

Some people will have seen reference to this on social media; others may have had the plight of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon – to use his real name – drawn to their attention by the hordes of protestors storming London over the May bank holiday weekend. But there has not, until today, been mainstream coverage of the case due to a reporting restriction – what is known as a “postponement order” – that forbade publication of these facts until after the conclusion of the trial upon which he was purporting to “report”.

While, as we’ll see below, the reasons for the postponement order appear sound, the consequence of preventing fair and accurate reporting by responsible journalists was that there was no factual counterpoint to the selective and inaccurate details of Yaxley-Lennon’s situation that were inevitably flooded through social media by his knuckle-dragging cheerleaders, not least his racists-in-arms across the pond. Thus sprung a (largely unchallenged and unchallengeable) narrative of Tommy The Brave being arrested outside court for no reason and imprisoned in secret by the deep state, culminating in petitions for his release and a march on Downing Street.

On the day itself, I attempted a post aimed at shining a little light on what might have happened (having no knowledge of the proceedings myself), but having been alerted by a reporter to the terms of the reporting restrictions, took the post down out of an abundance of caution. Now, however, with the restrictions relaxed we can try to restore a little order.

The full judgment is still awaited (expected imminently). For now let’s take this story in pieces based on what we know. I shall update the blogpost regularly as further information arrives.

images

1. Why was Tommy Robinson arrested?

Robinson was arrested outside Leeds Crown Court having video recorded a number of men – including defendants involved in a live trial – entering the court building, and livestreaming the footage on Facebook in what he claimed was an attempt at legitimate court reporting. West Yorkshire police, having been alerted to his activities, arrested Lennon at the scene. The initial reports suggested that he was arrested for a suspected breach of the peace, but what is now clear from the facts published today is that his actions in broadcasting details about the trial were in breach of reporting restrictions.

2. What are reporting restrictions?

The starting point of our criminal justice system is that justice must be seen to be done. However the law provides for exceptions to open justice, known generally as “reporting restrictions”. Reporting restrictions apply in a wide range of situations – from automatic restrictions preventing the identification of a complainant in a sexual allegation, to restrictions preventing reporting of Youth Court proceedings, to discretionary restrictions protecting the identity of child witnesses in the adult courts. Further details, if you are interested, can be found here.

One breed of restriction order is something called a “postponement order”, under section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. Postponement orders are not unusual, particularly where there are a series of linked trials – for example, where allegations of drug networks involving 30 defendants are concerned, there will be several trials (it not being physically possible to accommodate 30 defendants in a single courtroom). To avoid jurors having their deliberations contaminated by what they might read or hear about the earlier linked trials, reporting of all of them is often postponed until the end. Where there is a separate-but-related issue, such as a contempt of court involving a third party, this can also be the subject of a section 4(2) order. The test is:

Would a fair, accurate and contemporaneous report of the proceedings (or part thereof) published in good faith create a substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice in those or other proceedings?
Is an order postponing the publication of such reports necessary and are its terms proportionate? Would such an order eliminate the risk of prejudice to the administration of justice? Could less restrictive measures achieve the objective?
On the specific facts of this case, does the public interest in protecting the administration of justice outweigh the strong public interest in open justice?
This is what we had here. The judge had imposed a postponement order preventing the media from reporting on the ongoing trial until all linked trials had concluded.

Breaching a reporting restriction amounts to a contempt of court. Which is what Yaxley-Lennon admitted doing.

3. But I heard Tommy Robinson was arrested for a breach of the peace. What is a breach of the peace? How is a breach of the peace caused by someone simply filming?

Police officers have common law powers (i.e. powers not set out in statute) to arrest somebody where a breach of the peace is committed or where the officer reasonably believes it will be committed in the immediate future. As to what constitutes a breach of the peace, it is defined in case law as follows: “there is a breach of the peace whenever harm is actually done or is likely to be done to a person or in his presence to his property or a person is in fear of being so harmed through an assault, an affray, a riot, unlawful assembly or other disturbance.” (R v Howell [1982] Q.B. 416) As we can see, it’s a fairly broad definition.

The courts have confirmed that it covers situations where, for example, there are reasonable grounds to fear that a demonstrator or protestor is likely to incite violence, even violence against themselves. This appears to be applicable to the present case. Robinson provocatively filming defendants and streaming on Facebook for the edification of his cult, is the kind of thing which could, it might be argued, lead to a breach of the peace.

Once a person has been arrested for breaching the peace, the police have the power to detain that person where there is a real apprehension that if released they will renew the breach of the peace within a short time, and where the police believe that further detention is necessary to prevent this. Given Robinson’s history of interfering with criminal trials and his defiance towards court orders, one can see why the police may have genuinely feared that he would have simply returned to court if not detained. The power of detention is time-limited – the detainee must be released within 24 hours (if not charged), or for serious (indictable) offences, detention may be authorised up to 96 hours.

4. How can it be legal for somebody to be arrested for breach of the peace and then imprisoned for contempt?
It is perfectly common for a person to be arrested on suspicion of one offence, and then ultimately charged or dealt with for another. In this case, it appears that Yaxley-Lennon was arrested and detained for causing or threatening a breach of the peace, and that the court, upon being made aware of his activities, directed that he be brought to court to be dealt with for contempt of court. Even if his original arrest and detention had been unlawful (and there is nothing at all to suggest that it was), this would have absolutely no bearing on the contempt proceedings. The “breach of the peace” angle is a red herring.

5. So back up a step – what exactly is contempt of court?

Contempt of court is a broad, catch-all term for various offences against the administration of justice. The law(s) of contempt are designed to safeguard the fairness of legal proceedings and to maintain the authority and dignity of the court. Some contempts are set out in statute, including the aptly-named Contempt of Court Act 1981. This sets out what is referred to as “strict liability contempt” – the rule that it is a contempt to publish any matter which creates a substantial risk of serious prejudice or impediment to the course of justice in legal proceedings, irrespective of the intention behind the publication. There is a defence available to publishers (which includes newspapers, TV and social media users) who can show they were providing “a fair and accurate report of legal proceedings held in public, published contemporaneously and in good faith”, thus giving some latitude to the press and ensuring that the media do not shy away from accurate, factual reporting of criminal proceedings.

Other contempts are more eclectic, such as the prohibition on taking photographs or moving images inside a court building (or even drawing a picture – court sketch artists have to draw outside the court from memory – section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925).

There is also a common law offence of “criminal contempt”, which is defined by the courts as “conduct that denotes wilful defiance of, or disrespect towards the court, or that wilfully challenges or affronts the authority of the court or the supremacy of the law itself.” This might include refusing to answer questions in court, physically disrupting court proceedings, interfering with witnesses or jurors (where not charged as a distinct offence of witness intimidation or perverting the course of justice) or defying a judge’s order.

Which brings us back to Mr Yaxley-Lennon, and a sunny day in May last year at Canterbury Crown Court.

6. What happened at Canterbury Crown Court?

On 8 May 2017, during the course of a rape trial at Canterbury Crown Court involving four (Asian) defendants, Yaxley-Lennon attended court and attempted to film the defendants for an online broadcast entitled “Tommy Robinson in Canterbury exposing Muslim child rapists”. He was thwarted by the judge making arrangements for the defendants and jurors to leave court through alternative routes, and so settled for filming himself on camera, both on the court steps and inside the court building, preaching to his online followers about “Muslim paedophiles”. He was interrupted and told by court staff that recording was prohibited (section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925, as we’ve discussed above), but continued to record, insisting that he had been told by a different court that he was entitled to film the defendants (notwithstanding that court buildings are plastered with signs reminding people not to do this). His video diatribe – in which he said that “the paedophiles are hiding”, that the police had asked him not to “expose” them as paedophiles (presumably on the basis that they were, at that time, defendants in a live trial) but that “we will”, and that he would be “going round to their house” to catch the defendants on camera – thus continued. The judge hearing the rape trial was made aware, and he was brought before court to be dealt with for contempt of court.

The judge, HHJ Norton, dealt with Yaxley-Lennon on 22 May 2017. She found that he was in contempt by having filmed inside the court building, contrary to section 41, but was also in common law contempt by having continued to film having been told to stop by the court staff. The judge considered the content of his broadcast, and the real risk of his actions derailing the trial, and committed him to prison for 3 months, suspended for a period of 18 months. In practical terms, a suspended sentence means that the prison sentence (3 months) hangs over you for the operational period (18 months). If you remain offence-free and comply with any requirements the court makes, you will never have to serve your sentence. If you reoffend, the presumption in law is that you will serve that prison sentence, additional to whatever sentence you receive for the new offence.

7. So what you’re saying is that Tommy Robinson was given a suspended sentence simply for trying to report on a case? Free speech is truly dead.

No, ye of little brain. He was found to be in contempt of court and given a suspended sentence because his actions put a serious criminal trial in jeopardy. Running around a court building shouting “paedophile” at defendants during a live trial, or live-streaming defendants and members of the public – potentially including jurors – entering and exiting a court building against a tub thumping narration of “Muslim paedophile gangs”, is hardly conducive to ensuring a fair trial. And if there can’t be a fair trial, nobody gets justice. Not the accused, not the complainants, not the public. This is not theoretical – serious criminal trials have nearly collapsed because of the actions of people like Yaxley-Lennon.

We have a quaint tradition in England and Wales that trial by media should be avoided, and that trial on evidence heard in court is the fairest way to determine a person’s guilt. Therefore while criminal courts are open to the public, and it is absolutely fine to report soberly and accurately about ongoing criminal trials, anything which might prejudice or intimidate the jury is strictly forbidden. And this makes sense. It would be a nonsense, for example, to have strict laws preventing individuals from walking up to a juror to say, “The defendant you are trying is plainly a dirty paedophile”, but to allow broadcasters or tabloid columnists to trumpet that message to jurors through the media. Self-defined “free-speech advocates” – particularly a number on the other side of the Atlantic – have difficulty understanding this, so it’s worth pasting in full what HHJ Norton said:

“This contempt hearing is not about free speech. This is not about freedom of the press. This is not about legitimate journalism; this is not about political correctness; this is not about whether one political viewpoint is right or another. It is about justice, and it is about ensuring that a trial can be carried out justly and fairly. It is about ensuring that a jury are not in any way inhibited from carrying out their important function. It is about being innocent until proven guilty. It is not about people prejudging a situation and going round to that court and publishing material, whether in print or online, referring to defendants as “Muslim paedophile rapists”. A legitimate journalist would not be able to do that and under the strict liability rule there would be no defence to publication in those terms. It is pejorative language which prejudges the case, and it is language and reporting – if reporting indeed is what it is – that could have had the effect of substantially derailing the trial. As I have already indicated, because of what I knew was going on I had to take avoiding action to make sure that the integrity of this trial was preserved, that justice was preserved and that the trial could continue to completion without people being intimidated into reaching conclusions about it, or into being affected by “irresponsible and inaccurate reporting”. If something of the nature of that which you put out on social media had been put into the mainstream press I would have been faced with applications from the defence advocates concerned, I have no doubt, to either say something specific to the jury, or worse, to abandon the trial and to start again. That is the kind of thing that actions such as these can and do have, and that is why you have been dealt with in the way in which you have and why I am dealing with this case with the seriousness which I am.”

8. How is all that relevant to what took place on 25 May 2018?

It is relevant because, when passing the suspended sentence, HHJ Norton gave some fairly clear warnings to Yaxley-Lennon:

“[Y]ou should be under no illusions that if you commit any further offence of any kind, and that would include, I would have thought, a further contempt of court by similar actions, then that sentence of three months would be activated, and that would be on top of anything else that you were given by any other court.

In short, Mr Yaxley-Lennon, turn up at another court, refer to people as “Muslim paedophiles, Muslim rapists” and so and so forth while trials are ongoing and before there has been a finding by a jury that that is what they are, and you will find yourself inside. Do you understand?”
And what did Yaxley-Lennon go and do?

9. What did he go and do?

As we know now, he went and committed a contempt of court by reporting on court proceedings. He did so in a way that expressed his “views” on the guilt or otherwise of the defendants, creating a substantial risk of serious prejudice to the proceedings by jurors seeing or becoming aware of his ill-informed ramblings. If this wasn’t enough, he was also in breach of reporting restrictions which he accepted he knew about. He was therefore, it seems, in contempt twice over. This could have led to an application by the defence advocates to discharge the jury and start afresh, potentially meaning vulnerable complainants having to go through the trauma of a trial all over again, or even an application to “stay” (bring to an end) the proceedings altogether.

Importantly, Yaxley-Lennon admitted that he was in contempt of court.

And he was committed to prison for 10 months, with the suspended sentence of 3 months activated and directed to run consecutively. Exactly as he’d been warned.

10. He was tried in secret on the day he was arrested, with no lawyers and the media were banned from reporting what had happened. This is Kafka on steroids, surely?

Contempt proceedings do not attract a jury trial. The procedure for a court dealing with a criminal contempt is set out in the Criminal Procedure Rules. These allow for a “summary procedure”, where the court, having made its own enquiries and offered a contemnor (for that is the official term) the chance to seek legal advice, can deal with the offender straight away. The Crown Court can commit a contemnor to prison for up to two years. There is nothing unusual in him being dealt with on the day of the contempt. Courts are required to deal with contempts as swiftly as possible. There is no suggestion of any prejudice; Yaxley-Lennon was legally represented by an experienced barrister and would have received full legal advice.

He also wasn’t tried in secret; his contempt hearing was heard in public, with members of the press present. However, the judge imposed temporary reporting restrictions (under section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 again), postponing reporting of the details of Lennon’s contempt until the trial, and the subsequent related trial, had concluded. This, you may think, is for obvious reasons. A media circus and orchestrated attempt at martyrdom by Lennon and his followers – as was indeed attempted when the restrictions were defied by far-right blogs and foreign news outlets – would present exactly the sort of distraction that threatened to disrupt the very serious criminal proceedings that the judge was desperately seeking to keep on the rails.

In the event, the repeated breaches of the order by foreign news outlets and social media users meant that the judge’s intentions were thwarted. An application to discharge the reporting restriction was made on 29 May 2018 and the judge agreed that, in light of what had happened over the Bank Holiday weekend, restrictions should be lifted to allow publication of the facts.

It is also worth noting that there is a Practice Direction dealing with situations where defendants are imprisoned for contempt of court. This requires that full judgments be published online and handed to the media where a person is committed to prison for contempt. As we can expect imminently.

As for the suggestion (by UKIP among others) that nobody has ever before been found in contempt of court and a postponement order made preventing the media from immediately reporting it, a handy example can be found on 22 May 2017, where one Stephen Yaxley-Lennon was found to be in contempt at Canterbury, and a postponement order was made restricting publication until the end of the substantive trial.

*************************

UPDATE:

In light of the (frankly ingenious) conspiracy theories that are now doing the rounds after the rather mundane truth above was revealed, some bonus Q&As are required:

11. I heard that Tommy Robinson was denied his own lawyer, and had to have a duty lawyer who was in fact a PROSECUTION lawyer and who didn’t properly defend him.

The barrister previously instructed by Yaxley-Lennon has confirmed that she was not present at court for these proceedings. She is understandably declining to comment further unless or until authorised to do so. But in any case, Yaxley-Lennon was defended by an experienced member of the independent criminal Bar. He may have been offered the duty solicitor at the police station if his chosen solicitor was not available, but in the Crown Court hearing he was advised and represented by a specialist criminal barrister with over 16 years of experience of cases including murder, people-trafficking, serious violence and serious sexual offences. As an independent barrister, this professional prosecutes as well as defends (most of us do), but his website profile in fact emphasises his experience as a defence advocate. In other words, Yaxley-Lennon had a top-notch defence barrister fighting his corner.

12. No trial has ever taken place on the same day as a suspect’s arrest, oh FAKE LAWYER. This was special treatment dished out to a man who is a thorn in the side of the establishment. What do you say about that?

If we were talking about jury trials, I’d agree with you. But Yaxley-Lennon was not “tried”. The contempt proceedings were held on the same day, as is entirely standard (see details of the summary procedure for contempt above), and he admitted that he was in contempt of court. There is no special treatment here whatsoever. Anyone, infamous far-right totem or otherwise, would have been subject to the exact same process for contempt in breaching a reporting restriction. Not everyone would have been sent straight to prison; but then not everyone has a suspended sentence hanging over them for a near-identical offence.

13. I’ve seen a photo of the judge who sentenced Tommy watching his arrest from inside the court building. This judge was biased.

Even supposing the photograph shows what it is said to show, this is entirely irrelevant. If, as has happened in one of my cases, a member of the public starts shouting out at a judge mid-proceedings, the judge may direct the arrest of that person, and deal with them immediately for the contempt. Witnessing the arrest of an individual does not preclude a judge from dealing with that individual in these circumstances. This is, again, a complaint devoid of argument.

14. But the BBC reported on the same trial that Tommy did, and they’re not in prison. Why not?

Because any BBC reports, which as far as I have seen relate entirely to the outset of proceedings before the judge made the reporting restriction, were not in contempt of court. They were fair and accurate, rather than propagandist rants seeking to disseminate information that a judge had specifically ordered should not be in the public domain (such as details of charges against the defendants that had been dropped), and were not in breach of reporting restrictions.

15. Do you have to be so snarky in your lawsplaining? Aren’t you just turning off people who you need to convince?

This is a fair question. Ordinarily, I do my best in these posts to embrace rather than alienate in an effort to explain or persuade. But cases like this, involving co-ordinated transnational campaigns disseminating blatant falsehoods about our legal system and gaslighting the public are, I feel, different. And call for a different approach. As I see it, there are two types of people currently propagating the Free Tommy Robinson myths: far-right sympathisers deliberately sowing discord and falsehoods, whose concern for due process is a cipher for hero-worship; and good people confused and worried about what they’ve heard about the “threat to free speech” posed by the overbearing English and Welsh justice system. The first category are never going to be swayed by facts or rational argument. That is plain from their every interaction on social media, and their every appearance on Fox News. Their motives are clear, their integrity irretrievable and they are not only beyond reach but, frankly, not worth the effort. The second group will, I hope, realise from this explanation that the toga party they have wandered into is in fact a Klan meeting, and will understand the urgency and frustration that underpins the argument.

However the reality is that most people out in the world are probably paying little attention to the ballad of St Tommy, but may form partial views based on what snippets they read and hear. I want this – the truth – to be that snippet. If the key to turning up the online volume is a snappy tone and uncompromising beatdown of idiots and liars, then that’s the game I’ll play._________________--
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.comhttp://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."

Mr Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon, was jailed after he filmed people involved in a criminal trial and broadcast the footage on social media before being released on a technicality yesterday.

During a pre-recorded interview with BBC Radio 4 Raheem Kassam mentioned he had spoken to Mr Robinson and he was confident he would not be returning to prison.

One Twitter user said: “I just heard Raheem Kassam singing the praises of Tommy Robinson and claiming neither he nor Steve Bannon are far-right, with very little challenge. Switched off in disgust.”

Another said: “Raheem Kassam is a right wing extremist and so is Tommy Robinson why are you giving them coverage.

“Islamophobes should not be given the oxygen of publicity. Your programme has lost the plot.”

The BBC’s flagship Today programme has lost 800,000 listeners over the past year, according to Rajar figures released on Thursday.

Tommy Robinson: I have a lot to say but not to the media Play Video

One Twitter user referenced the report and said: “It's fitting it's revealed that BBC Radio 4 has lost 10 percent of its audience in a year on the day it interviews Raheem Kassam.”

Another said: “Lost the plot. Radio 4 doing its bit to further damage the already plagued brand of the BBC. Raheem Kassam?”

The BBC apologised for incorrectly referring to Tommy Robinson as the “EDL leader”.

In a tweet they said: “Apologies, should read: Former EDL leader Tommy Robinson…”

Twitter user David Smith commented: “That really isn’t the only apology you need to make.”

BBC news: Tommy Robinson

BBC Radio 4 face a backlash after interviewing Tommy Robinson supporter Raheem Kassam (Image: GETTY • PA)
Another said: “There are a lot of things that that should read…”

Three leading judges in London quashed a contempt finding made at Leeds Crown Court in May, and granted Robinson conditional bail from a 13-month jail sentence pending new proceedings at the Old Bailey.

Robinson left HMP Onley in Rugby on Wednesday afternoon after being freed by Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett, Mr Justice Turner and Mrs Justice McGowan in London earlier in the day.

Lord Burnett said that, if found in contempt of court at the fresh hearing, Robinson may even be given a longer jail term.

He said: "First, the alleged contempt was serious and the sentence might be longer if a finding is again made against the appellant" and added: "Secondly, and in any event, a determination of the underlying contempt allegations in the circumstances of this case is in the public interest."

I mean that pretty much sums it up.
Which is what I’ve been saying here the whole time anyway – that the whole Tommy Robinson thing is a staged psy-op for dummies and for the sake of maintaining the ‘race war‘ strategy of tension.

And the fact that ‘Mr Robinson’ has now been released from prison after three months of what was intended to be a thirteen-month stretch probably demonstrates the staged, scripted nature of the entire affair – which was clearly designed only to further build up Robinson’s ‘brand’, portray him as a martyr and further inflame the white nationalist mob for the sake of a psychological warfare operation that is still in play.

They rely on the gulible stupidity of enough people to take the bait and run with it – that’s why that ‘QAnon’ business in the US is still going on too. But this one is way stupider.

At this point, I’m almost doubting that ‘Tommy’ was even in prison at all – he might’ve simply been kept somewhere out of sight for a couple of months while all this drama and the ‘FREE TOMMY’ hashtag (psy-op) played out for maximum drama.

I can’t recall too many instances where a judge sentences someone to thirteen months, and then they’re released after three – and to a hero’s welcome. UKIP have compared Robinson to Nelson Mandela – which, rather hilariously, is precisely what I said would happen two months ago: the difference is that I was being sarcastic, but UKIP appear to be trying to make a serious statement.

We’re told there’s going to be a re-trial down the line; and that ‘Tommy’ was released because the initial trial was considered to have been flawed. But, almost certainly, the decision has been made due to outside pressure – and we know for a fact that this outside pressure was there.

For the record, I think 13 months was harsh anyway – but that’s not the point. As I reported here last month, Robinson’s legal fees were being picked up by the Zionist/Neo-Con group ‘Middle East Forum’. The Israel-linked think-tank also said at the time that it was “bringing foreign pressure on the UK government to ensure Mr Robinson’s safety and eventual release” – a statement that was signed by Gregg Roman, who was previously with Israeli Defense and Foreign Ministries.

Assuming Robinson was ever in prison in the first place, it was external actors and agencies that coerced British authorities into releasing him so early – it had little to do with the justice system or with any genuine rethinking of the case.

None of that adds up; especially when you’re dealing with an international psy-op involving such high-profile coverage, campaigning, ‘brand’ management and merchandising (I’ll get to the merchandising in a second – it’s really * weird).

In addition to the ‘Middle East Forum’ and other probable agencies behind the scenes, former Breitbart/Goldman-Sachs man, Steve Bannon, has also been zealously championing Robinson’s cause – and using the #FREETOMMY psy-op to drive momentum for his planned international right-wing coalition (‘The Movement‘), which states that its aims are to undermine liberal societies and governments, establish right-wing nationalist states in an international movement and, in short, push for a return to the 1930s in precisely the manner I was predicting here in the ‘Seeds of Fascism‘ a year-and-a-half ago: as I tried to demonstrate back then, through clear sources, quotes and references, this is all a well-planned operation to incite a race war and a resurgence of international fascism, centering on Europe – and various Zionist actors, like Robinson and Geert “Zionism for Europe” Wilders, are a key part of that programme.

Here’s a clip of Bannon on LBC, by the way, championing ‘Tommy’ as “the backbone” of the country. He shortly then went on to have a mini breakdown in the studio, suggesting that Steve Bannon might not be entirely stable.

–

–

At any rate, the point of the #FreeTommy *-show, all along, has been maximium drama to raise passions among the stupid, turn Tommy into some kind of noble free speech hero and whip up the public into the frenzy.

That mission had already been such a success in the last few months that there was no longer any need for this part of the scripted pantomime to be played out fully.

Research shows that over half of the social-media fan-boys involved in the #FreeTommy campaign were not in the UK, but in the US and other countries: Tommy Robinson’s profile was massively raised across the Western world, helping elevate the psy-op all across social media, alt- right websites, forums and YouTube channels, and into the mainstream media.

Mission accomplished.

Meanwhile, the EDL/Pegida man and Mossad fanboy has complained he was “mentally tortured” during his few weeks in prison – by “mentally tortured” he means, we’re told, that he had no television.

Seriously, that’s what he said.

He also compared his brief jail time to ‘Guantanamo Bay’ – despite authorities insisting he is lying about having spent the entire two months in solitary confinement. “I was supposed to be in Her Majesty’s Prison Service, not Guantanamo Bay,” said the bad actor and probable intelligence-agency asset.

I mean this is almost beyond parody – the whole big alpha-male act and he considers no TV to be mental torture? And yet here’s a guy who, like all the alt-right agitators, routinely refers to liberals as ‘snowflakes’?

Is there anyone snowier or flakier than ‘Tommy’ Robinson whining about being deprived of Celebrity Love Island for a little while?

His comparison to Guantanamo – where real torture occurs – is also hilarious, given that he of course has passionately endorsed Guantanamo Bay in the past: as all Neo-Con/Zionist actors tend to do.

Unfortunately, as has been all too clear in recent weeks, the majority of Tommy’s rabid cheerleaders tend to be unversed in irony and will therefore not see the funny side of any of these statements from the man with four names and god-knows-how-many passports.

An unknown amount of money has also been made via all of the #FREETOMMY merchandise that has been flogged in the last two months – which appears to be a lot.

I did a quick Google Search and it seems that psy-op nonsense is being sold all over the place.

I even spotted ‘Free Tommy’ clothes for children – and I almost choked on my Earl Grey. This * has gone beyond funny and into the realms of disturbing. I mean, it was funny when it was sad adults – but seeing innocent little kids in the ‘Free Tommy’ wear is beginning to seem like a proper fascist fantasy. I mean Goebels could’ve worked even greater wonders if he had the Internet.

That little girl in the hoodie is going to be so embarassed one day when she looks back at what someone made her wear.

–

–

Also – and I acknowledge this might be in poor taste – but the kid in the purple bib seems to have Adolf Hitler’s haircut. Just saying.

I’m actually a bit scared… that I’ve woken up in an alternate reality where all the smart people have already been rounded up and sent away and all that’s left is this.

Also, out of sheer curiosity, I did a search for ‘Free Anjem Choudary’ merchandise – but, as expected, found nothing. Anjem must be feeling a tad jealous of his soul-mate’s incredible popularity – it’s always tough when you’re the less popular one in a double-act.

Just ask Sonny and Cher. Or Ren and Stimpy.

Again, I’m no longer entirely convinced that he was actually in prison at all. But, even if he was, it’s still just a script.

Remember that this is all a script. And always remember that very strange thing the judge said to ‘Tommy’ in one of his previous trials in 2013: where the judge called Tommy’s ‘Paul Harris’ passport his “real passport”, but then jailed him under the name of ‘Stephen Yaxley Lennon’ – and then implied that his “real name” might never be known inside the public realm.

Yeah, nothing suspect about that.

In addition to the massive international boost to his brand that his imprisonment has created, and however much cash was raked in from all the baby-wear, we are also told that Robinson made a ton of money by being in jail for two months – somewhere in the region on £20,000.

This is, of course, in addition to the funding he receives from tech billionaire Robert Shillman via the ‘Rebel Media’ psy-op platform, which is also tied up in the David Horowitz Freedom Center. The Middle East Forum – founded by Neo-Con psy-op expert and members of the Council on Foreign Relations, Daniel Pipes – was, as I said previously, funding Robinson’s legal case, as well organising the mass rallies in England, Israel and Texas: the same group has claimed it has financially aided Robinson in the region of a five-figure sum.

As per most of what I wrote here about the well-funded international network that Robinson belongs to, it appears also that American-based Zionist figurehead Pamela Gellar has also been funding Robinson. Gellar (pictured with Robison and some of the others below), you’ll recall, is the reason ‘Tommy’ had previously tried to enter the United States using a fake passport – to attend a Gellar-sponsored ‘event’ involving cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.

–

–

On that note, I predicted a few weeks ago that the upcoming Geert Wilders’ ‘Draw Muhammad Cartoon Contest’ in the Netherlands is probably being designed to trigger either a real Islamist attack or incident or a staged false-flag terror attack. With ‘Tommy’ now free, I wouldn’t be surprised if Wilders’ cartoon contest goes ahead very soon so that his friend ‘Tommy’ can attend, along with Gellar and all the usual crowd – for maximum publicity and propaganda.

Remember that all of those individuals belong to the same international network, with the same sources of funding, which is why they’re always so incestuous. It is all inter-linked and these things are all designed to feed off each other, gathering momentum over a number of years until we reach a planned boiling point.

And, as previously noted, ‘Tommy’ seems to get advance notification for false-flag terror attacks, as he clearly did in the case of the Westminster attack in March 2017: so there’s probably a major propaganda event planned and it probably will be the Geert Wilders cartoon thing. But that’s just my guess.

And long may the psy-op continue. Which it will, because we’re in the age of stupid.

And hey, if a re-trial does end with him being put back in jail (but not really), at least all the ‘FREE TOMMY’ t-shirts, mugs and baby-wear is all still in stock! Don’t get forget your ‘FREE TOMMY’ mouse-mats, key-rings and pin-badges too!

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum